>I understand how to set summary values on Family Search, but I don't see
>where the button is to "Set Family Tree" or see the data show "set" as you
>stated.

S Douglas Cline

Hi Tom, I was indeed on build six instead of seven. Now that I have upgraded, I see the Set Family Tree button instead of the set summary. However, I

Message 2 of 26
, Nov 10, 2012

Hi Tom,

I was indeed on build six instead of seven. Now that I have upgraded, I see
the "Set Family Tree" button instead of the "set summary." However, I don't
see anywhere that it shows any data showing "set." Should I see that in AQ
or in Family Tree? Or were you just saying that after you click the "Set
Family Tree" button, that the data is actually set?

As I use Family Tree, it seems much more cumbersome to me than nFS but I
suppose I will get used to it in time. But I really haven't been able to
tell if the records are emulating nFS or not. In fact I have the same name
in Family Tree with two different ID's and yet when I check for possible
duplicates on either one of them, it tells me there are no matches found,
which is of course ridiculous. Anyway, thanks so much for the help.

S Douglas Cline

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

tomhuber.yah@gmail.com

Once you press the Set Family Tree a window will open and allow to select the desired data for the name, birth, death, and burial. The advantage of Family

Message 3 of 26
, Nov 10, 2012

Once you press the "Set Family Tree" a window will open and allow to
select the desired data for the name, birth, death, and burial.

The advantage of Family Tree may not be readily apparent if you are
working with relatively clean records. But if there is a mess (as
there is with some of my families), you can clean up the extraneous
data. They are then reflected back to what you see when you look at
the date from AQ.

I'm sure that everything is not quite as it should be, yet, but it is
getting there.

Tom

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:42:43 -0700, you wrote:

>
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>
>
>I was indeed on build six instead of seven. Now that I have upgraded, I see
>the "Set Family Tree" button instead of the "set summary." However, I don't
>see anywhere that it shows any data showing "set." Should I see that in AQ
>or in Family Tree? Or were you just saying that after you click the "Set
>Family Tree" button, that the data is actually set?
>
>
>
>As I use Family Tree, it seems much more cumbersome to me than nFS but I
>suppose I will get used to it in time. But I really haven't been able to
>tell if the records are emulating nFS or not. In fact I have the same name
>in Family Tree with two different ID's and yet when I check for possible
>duplicates on either one of them, it tells me there are no matches found,
>which is of course ridiculous. Anyway, thanks so much for the help.
>
>
>
>S Douglas Cline
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gaylon Findlay

I haven t heard anything official about whether the combine capability would be removed from the FamilySearch API, and therefore from AQ s ability to provide

Message 4 of 26
, Nov 10, 2012

I haven't heard anything official about whether the combine capability would be removed from the FamilySearch API, and therefore from AQ's ability to provide it. From various things I had heard, I assumed that the combine capability would have been blocked by now, but just the other day I tested this to be sure, and it is still there. You have already heard this from others, but I think this is an important preface to the other observations I am making:

I believe that when you currently combine nFS records using AQ, that this combining is also reflected in the Family Tree. For example, if you are combining record "AAAA-BBB" with "CCCC-DDD", one of these two records will seemingly disappear, as it is combined with the other. And I think it will not only be removed from view in nFS, but in the Family Tree as well.

Based on the information posted on nFS, I believe that FamilySearch would prefer that you use the Family Tree to merge people, but they have still made it available to combine using AQ. I think that when you combine records in nFS using AQ, that FamilySearch does a corresponding automatic merge in Family Tree to keep the two systems in sync.

I thought the video you most recently posted to this user group was most
informative. Thank you.

I have a question that I would like to ask: As we are all aware, New Family
Search will go away sometime in the near future in favor of Family Tree, but
I understand that for the time being, the Church is keeping New Family
Search's data base and Family Tree's data base in sync with each other.
Nevertheless, it is also evident that certain features of nFS are being
taken away, forcing if you will, us to use Family Tree's features. An
example of this is the ability to merge and unmerge individuals. Even
though the ability to combine and un-combine is now defunct in nFS, this
ability is still available through AQ. An example of this is when linking
an individual in one's local data base to nFS, if several "hits" are
encountered in this process, then AQ has the ability to combine and sync
these "hits" into one. Also in the "Review with Family Search" option in
AQ, AQ allows to combine spouses and children, etc.

My question is this: If I use AQ's ability to combine individuals and
family members in nFS using the methods I just described above, are they
still reflected and synced with the data base in Family Tree? And for that
matter, even though it appears like people are being combined in nFS by
these same methods, is it really taking effect in nFS (since those combining
functions are purportedly disabled)?

Thanks in advance for your response. And by the way, though I don't
participate as much as others on this site I watch assiduously the
conversations that take place and learn a great deal in the process. Thanks
again for a great product and for the great support that you and your team
render to us users!

S Douglas Cline

Brown & Young Companies

Cell: 801 560-2340

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

S Douglas Cline

Thank you Gaylon for this information. It is very helpful. AND I sincerely hope that the API for reconciling duplicates will be made available by the Church

Message 5 of 26
, Nov 11, 2012

Thank you Gaylon for this information. It is very helpful. AND I sincerely
hope that the API for reconciling duplicates will be made available by the
Church for AQ's engine to do this in the future for Family Tree. AQ has
always been less cumbersome, more intuitive, faster and overall more
efficient than any of the previous Church software. Let's hope they give
you full access to drive FT through the AQ engine. Frankly, I don't
understand any reluctance on their part for this not to happen, especially
now that it has worked so well in the past with nFS. So we'll hope for the
best !

Thanks again,

Doug Cline

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mary-Theresa Dameron

My understanding from reading was that effective on October 31st, the combine and/or separate feature is no longer active in New FamilySearch. When opening the

Message 6 of 26
, Dec 6, 2012

My understanding from reading was that effective on October 31st, the
combine and/or separate feature is no longer active in New FamilySearch.
When opening the link in AQ, the program refers me to Family Tree.

I haven't heard anything official about whether the combine capability would
be removed from the FamilySearch API, and therefore from AQ's ability to
provide it. From various things I had heard, I assumed that the combine
capability would have been blocked by now, but just the other day I tested
this to be sure, and it is still there. You have already heard this from
others, but I think this is an important preface to the other observations I
am making:

I believe that when you currently combine nFS records using AQ, that this
combining is also reflected in the Family Tree. For example, if you are
combining record "AAAA-BBB" with "CCCC-DDD", one of these two records will
seemingly disappear, as it is combined with the other. And I think it will
not only be removed from view in nFS, but in the Family Tree as well.

Based on the information posted on nFS, I believe that FamilySearch would
prefer that you use the Family Tree to merge people, but they have still
made it available to combine using AQ. I think that when you combine records
in nFS using AQ, that FamilySearch does a corresponding automatic merge in
Family Tree to keep the two systems in sync.

I thought the video you most recently posted to this user group was most
informative. Thank you.

I have a question that I would like to ask: As we are all aware, New Family
Search will go away sometime in the near future in favor of Family Tree, but

I understand that for the time being, the Church is keeping New Family
Search's data base and Family Tree's data base in sync with each other.
Nevertheless, it is also evident that certain features of nFS are being
taken away, forcing if you will, us to use Family Tree's features. An
example of this is the ability to merge and unmerge individuals. Even
though the ability to combine and un-combine is now defunct in nFS, this
ability is still available through AQ. An example of this is when linking
an individual in one's local data base to nFS, if several "hits" are
encountered in this process, then AQ has the ability to combine and sync
these "hits" into one. Also in the "Review with Family Search" option in
AQ, AQ allows to combine spouses and children, etc.

My question is this: If I use AQ's ability to combine individuals and
family members in nFS using the methods I just described above, are they
still reflected and synced with the data base in Family Tree? And for that
matter, even though it appears like people are being combined in nFS by
these same methods, is it really taking effect in nFS (since those combining

functions are purportedly disabled)?

Thanks in advance for your response. And by the way, though I don't
participate as much as others on this site I watch assiduously the
conversations that take place and learn a great deal in the process. Thanks
again for a great product and for the great support that you and your team
render to us users!

S Douglas Cline

Brown & Young Companies

Cell: 801 560-2340

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Leslie Vaughn

I have been syncing/linking and combining records on NFS tonight. I have been adding information to individuals on nfs thru AQ and downloading information

Message 7 of 26
, Dec 6, 2012

I have been syncing/linking and combining records on NFS tonight. I have
been adding information to individuals on nfs thru AQ and downloading
information from nfs to AQ. Yesterday I did a bunch of combining on nfs
using AQ.

My understanding from reading was that effective on October 31st, the
combine and/or separate feature is no longer active in New FamilySearch.
When opening the link in AQ, the program refers me to Family Tree.

I haven't heard anything official about whether the combine capability would
be removed from the FamilySearch API, and therefore from AQ's ability to
provide it. From various things I had heard, I assumed that the combine
capability would have been blocked by now, but just the other day I tested
this to be sure, and it is still there. You have already heard this from
others, but I think this is an important preface to the other observations I
am making:

I believe that when you currently combine nFS records using AQ, that this
combining is also reflected in the Family Tree. For example, if you are
combining record "AAAA-BBB" with "CCCC-DDD", one of these two records will
seemingly disappear, as it is combined with the other. And I think it will
not only be removed from view in nFS, but in the Family Tree as well.

Based on the information posted on nFS, I believe that FamilySearch would
prefer that you use the Family Tree to merge people, but they have still
made it available to combine using AQ. I think that when you combine records
in nFS using AQ, that FamilySearch does a corresponding automatic merge in
Family Tree to keep the two systems in sync.

I thought the video you most recently posted to this user group was most
informative. Thank you.

I have a question that I would like to ask: As we are all aware, New Family
Search will go away sometime in the near future in favor of Family Tree, but

I understand that for the time being, the Church is keeping New Family
Search's data base and Family Tree's data base in sync with each other.
Nevertheless, it is also evident that certain features of nFS are being
taken away, forcing if you will, us to use Family Tree's features. An
example of this is the ability to merge and unmerge individuals. Even
though the ability to combine and un-combine is now defunct in nFS, this
ability is still available through AQ. An example of this is when linking
an individual in one's local data base to nFS, if several "hits" are
encountered in this process, then AQ has the ability to combine and sync
these "hits" into one. Also in the "Review with Family Search" option in
AQ, AQ allows to combine spouses and children, etc.

My question is this: If I use AQ's ability to combine individuals and
family members in nFS using the methods I just described above, are they
still reflected and synced with the data base in Family Tree? And for that
matter, even though it appears like people are being combined in nFS by
these same methods, is it really taking effect in nFS (since those combining

functions are purportedly disabled)?

Thanks in advance for your response. And by the way, though I don't
participate as much as others on this site I watch assiduously the
conversations that take place and learn a great deal in the process. Thanks
again for a great product and for the great support that you and your team
render to us users!

S Douglas Cline

Brown & Young Companies

Cell: 801 560-2340

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim Pitt 48

Like Leslie I have been syncing/linking and combining records. I have been doing it throughout all of November/December without any problems. Jim Pitt ...

Message 8 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

Like Leslie I have been syncing/linking and combining records. I have been doing it throughout all of November/December without any problems.

I have been syncing/linking and combining records on NFS tonight. I have
been adding information to individuals on nfs thru AQ and downloading
information from nfs to AQ. Yesterday I did a bunch of combining on nfs
using AQ.

My understanding from reading was that effective on October 31st, the
combine and/or separate feature is no longer active in New FamilySearch.
When opening the link in AQ, the program refers me to Family Tree.

I haven't heard anything official about whether the combine capability would
be removed from the FamilySearch API, and therefore from AQ's ability to
provide it. From various things I had heard, I assumed that the combine
capability would have been blocked by now, but just the other day I tested
this to be sure, and it is still there. You have already heard this from
others, but I think this is an important preface to the other observations I
am making:

I believe that when you currently combine nFS records using AQ, that this
combining is also reflected in the Family Tree. For example, if you are
combining record "AAAA-BBB" with "CCCC-DDD", one of these two records will
seemingly disappear, as it is combined with the other. And I think it will
not only be removed from view in nFS, but in the Family Tree as well.

Based on the information posted on nFS, I believe that FamilySearch would
prefer that you use the Family Tree to merge people, but they have still
made it available to combine using AQ. I think that when you combine records
in nFS using AQ, that FamilySearch does a corresponding automatic merge in
Family Tree to keep the two systems in sync.

I thought the video you most recently posted to this user group was most
informative. Thank you.

I have a question that I would like to ask: As we are all aware, New Family
Search will go away sometime in the near future in favor of Family Tree, but

I understand that for the time being, the Church is keeping New Family
Search's data base and Family Tree's data base in sync with each other.
Nevertheless, it is also evident that certain features of nFS are being
taken away, forcing if you will, us to use Family Tree's features. An
example of this is the ability to merge and unmerge individuals. Even
though the ability to combine and un-combine is now defunct in nFS, this
ability is still available through AQ. An example of this is when linking
an individual in one's local data base to nFS, if several "hits" are
encountered in this process, then AQ has the ability to combine and sync
these "hits" into one. Also in the "Review with Family Search" option in
AQ, AQ allows to combine spouses and children, etc.

My question is this: If I use AQ's ability to combine individuals and
family members in nFS using the methods I just described above, are they
still reflected and synced with the data base in Family Tree? And for that
matter, even though it appears like people are being combined in nFS by
these same methods, is it really taking effect in nFS (since those combining

functions are purportedly disabled)?

Thanks in advance for your response. And by the way, though I don't
participate as much as others on this site I watch assiduously the
conversations that take place and learn a great deal in the process. Thanks
again for a great product and for the great support that you and your team
render to us users!

S Douglas Cline

Brown & Young Companies

Cell: 801 560-2340

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

S Douglas Cline

As like the others, I am still able to combine records in nFS through Ancestral Quest. S Douglas Cline [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Message 9 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

As like the others, I am still able to combine records in nFS through
Ancestral Quest.

S Douglas Cline

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mary-Theresa Dameron

My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn t really talk to FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest database? If you are

Message 10 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
changes should be in FamilyTree.

Mary-Theresa Dameron

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

S Douglas Cline

Mine are being updated I FT also. SD Cline s iPhone 5

Message 11 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

Mine are being updated I FT also.

SD Cline's iPhone 5

stew999@gmail.com

Why is anyone continuing to combine or uncombine duplicates in nFS? nFS is slated to be withdrawn in early 2013 - I know they still have to transfer Notes and

Message 12 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

Why is anyone continuing to combine or uncombine duplicates in nFS?

nFS is slated to be withdrawn in early 2013 - I know they still have to
transfer Notes and any nFS Sources before then.

The message is - get off nFS asap - do all your corrective work in Family
Tree without the complication of duplicates.

My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
changes should be in FamilyTree.

Mary-Theresa Dameron

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

S Douglas Cline

If u have used family tree then u know the answer. SD Cline s iPhone 5

Message 13 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

If u have used family tree then u know the answer.

SD Cline's iPhone 5

Leslie Vaughn

Because we can do it through AQ with minimum of effort. All my changes made through AQ to nfs are updating to FT. When AQ can interface with FT then I will

Message 14 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

Because we can do it through AQ with minimum of effort.

All my changes made through AQ to nfs are updating to FT. When AQ can
interface with FT then I will use it that way. I occasionally go directly
to FT to view my changes and to do some editing and adding just so I can be
familiar with it. But I much prefer using AQ for that feature. Also
using AQ you can see the various data on nfs that is not transitioning to FT
and I am using Gaylon's tips to make sure the most correct information is
kept.

I know that most of the good features will be available in FT but they are
not there yet, such as adding my notes or getting the notes of others. As
long as the information transitions from nfs to FT I will continue to use AQ
to make changes and to reserve temple ordinances. I believe that if we
were not supposed to be doing it that way at all, the ability to do so would
be removed.

My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
changes should be in FamilyTree.

Mary-Theresa Dameron

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rosemary Hopkins

I am continuing to use AQ for all of my family tree updates. It is easy to do and I can have a nice red tag that shows me who I have checked in family tree.

Message 15 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

I am continuing to use AQ for all of my family tree updates. It is easy to
do and I can have a nice red tag that shows me who I have checked in family
tree. Once I have tagged everyone I am concerned with, I will go back and
add more sources. It is a slow process, but I still find I like AQ for
doing everything related to my family history research and for submitting
things to the temple. Occasionally I hit a snafu, but if I close
everything out and try later, I can usually do what I need to do. I am a
great fan of AQ. It is so easy to use and helps me keep things straight.
Thank you, Gaylon, for a fine product. Rosemary Hopkins

> **
>
>
> Because we can do it through AQ with minimum of effort.
>
> All my changes made through AQ to nfs are updating to FT. When AQ can
> interface with FT then I will use it that way. I occasionally go directly
> to FT to view my changes and to do some editing and adding just so I can be
> familiar with it. But I much prefer using AQ for that feature. Also
> using AQ you can see the various data on nfs that is not transitioning to
> FT
> and I am using Gaylon's tips to make sure the most correct information is
> kept.
>
> I know that most of the good features will be available in FT but they are
> not there yet, such as adding my notes or getting the notes of others. As
> long as the information transitions from nfs to FT I will continue to use
> AQ
> to make changes and to reserve temple ordinances. I believe that if we
> were not supposed to be doing it that way at all, the ability to do so
> would
> be removed.
>
> Leslie Vaughn
>
> From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> stew999@...
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:03 PM
> To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS
>
> Why is anyone continuing to combine or uncombine duplicates in nFS?
>
> nFS is slated to be withdrawn in early 2013 - I know they still have to
> transfer Notes and any nFS Sources before then.
>
> The message is - get off nFS asap - do all your corrective work in Family
> Tree without the complication of duplicates.
>
> ===Stewart
>
> From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> Of
> Mary-Theresa Dameron
> Sent: 07 December 2012 20:40
> To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS
>
> My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
> FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
> database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
> option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
> changes should be in FamilyTree.
>
> Mary-Theresa Dameron
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mkitchen@juno.com

For your information, using Ancestral Quest to combine followed by a selection of the Summary values accomplishes the same thing as a merge in Family Tree.

Message 16 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

For your information, using Ancestral Quest to "combine" followed by a selection of the Summary values accomplishes the same thing as a merge in Family Tree. It also gets on the change-log as a merge which you or others can do an unmerge if needed.

So, for all intents and purposes, in using AQ, you are actually doing a merge.

At the moment, AQ is much better at finding duplicates than is Family Tree.

FamilySearch has told Incline Software that they will keep the old methodology running until they tell him to start using new methods.

My advice: use the sandbox website (beta.familysearch.org) and practice a few merges and unmerges.

As always, make sure that your are combining or merging records that are truly duplicates and not just people of the same name.

In my estimation, a much bigger problem is records that previously have been improperly combined. With AQ, you can better see that problem. The other day, I helped a patron where four sisters had been combined into one record (Bessie, Essie, Dessie, and Mary!)
In my own work, just this week, I found a record where a Homer J. Beck, b. 1902 in Arkansas was combined with a Homer C. Beck, b. 1890 in Kentucky. Looking at the person in AQ showed the different birth dates and places and gave a strong hint of an improper combining.
When records are improperly combined in new.familySearch, it migrates to Family Tree as only one person.

Actually the two sites are still linked and there is some exchange of information. Names, dates and places are communicated, but not necessarily relationships.

Message 17 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

Actually the two sites are still linked and there is some exchange of
information. Names, dates and places are communicated, but not necessarily
relationships. The biggest problem is probably combined records, which
cannot be separated in FT. If you can separate them using AQ, please do.
Otherwise send all the info to support@..., where wrongly
combined records can often be separated by a special unit.

> **
>
>
> My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
> FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
> database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
> option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
> changes should be in FamilyTree.
>
> Mary-Theresa Dameron
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

Thanks for all your replies. The Quaker records I am working on need a lot of work according the current AQ interface - be interesting to see what happens

Message 18 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

Thanks for all your replies. The Quaker records I am working on need a lot
of work according the current AQ interface - be interesting to see what
happens when AQ is linked to Family Tree.

Mary-Theresa

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

tomhuber.yah@gmail.com

The only thing that AQ doesn t handle is unmerging previously-merged records. It can be used to establish the visible records and it is very good at merging

Message 19 of 26
, Dec 7, 2012

The only thing that AQ doesn't handle is unmerging previously-merged
records. It can be used to establish the "visible" records and it is
very good at merging records.

But for "unmerging" incorrectly merged records, you'll need to use
Family Tree for that. For correcting such mistakes as wrong gender,
you'll need to open a ticket via FamilySearch help. Make sure you
provide all the required information (FS ID, name, relationships,
etc., and proof that the person has had the wrong gender applied.)

One last thing: FS is continuing to work on its documentation. Make
sure you always are using the latest version for the "how to"
instructions.

Tom

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:09:40 -0700, you wrote:

>Thanks for all your replies. The Quaker records I am working on need a lot
>of work according the current AQ interface - be interesting to see what
>happens when AQ is linked to Family Tree.
>
>
>
>Mary-Theresa
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cleadie B

I just use AQ yesterday to combine one complete family. As Bill said, relationships did not transfer for most of them. Had to go fishing in FT to get them

Message 20 of 26
, Dec 8, 2012

I just use AQ yesterday to combine one complete family. As Bill said, relationships did not transfer for most of them. Had to go fishing in FT to get them linked.

As for not being able to separate incorrectly combined records - nFS Has this to say about how to do it.

"The combine and separate features are being turned off because Family Tree is now available.
Family Tree handles duplicate records in a new, improved way that is incompatible with new.familysearch.org.
If you need to deal with duplicate records or fix an incorrectly combined record, copy the person's name and person
identifier. Then use that information to find the person in Family Tree.
From there, you can resolve duplicate records or make the needed corrections."

Maybe I am wrong, but I believe the old records not moved to FT and will all be deleted, so there is no need to worry about data that had not transferred. What ends up on FT being the only thing to survive, and we are to work with what is there to correct the data for our line - if this is done through FT or AQ, it is up to the individual doing the work.

There are very few records in my line that have possible duplicates, so I haven't had to manage any incorrectly combined record. Unless the example mentioned next counts as an example.

I have come upon a man married to two women named Mary (each with their own IDs), and his children split between the two women. One had another husband and family, so when I took the children that belonged to the other Mary off her file, and put them with the right couple, all I then had to do was delete the unwanted marriage, and everything was fine, both Marys had their right husbands and children. (Except there were children missing from my family since the relationship didn't work from AQ, as stated at the top of this message.)

I did run into a couple that gave a list of one or two duplicates to
check. You could mark the data you wanted to use from each file, and it
would merge. I have not seen any way to fix incorrectly combined record other than to just remove data that wasn't right, and add new data in
its place. Maybe that is what they mean by fixing wrongly merged
individuals. ??? Have to do a bit more searching the help files. :-)

Actually the two sites are still linked and there is some exchange of
information. Names, dates and places are communicated, but not necessarily
relationships. The biggest problem is probably combined records, which
cannot be separated in FT.

...

tomhuber.yah@gmail.com

... Wrongly merged individuals often include a child merged with a grandparent, creating an impossible loop. That has happened far too often because merging in

Message 21 of 26
, Dec 8, 2012

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 08:14:13 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>its place. Maybe that is what they mean by fixing wrongly merged
>individuals. ??? Have to do a bit more searching the help files. :-)

Wrongly merged individuals often include a child merged with a
grandparent, creating an impossible loop. That has happened far too
often because merging in nFS was sometimes done without considering
who was being merged, only that the names were the same.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.